Conflicting Values or Common Ground? Some Concluding Thoughts
In this closing chapter, I reflect on the issues and themes brought up around competing values in heritage management in the previous contributions. I look in particular at themes of communities and ownership, heritage protection (in times of conflict but also in peace time), the influence of digitization and the possible impact of major political changes on archaeological heritage management. Heritage itself as an academic subject can also be framed and thought about in different ways, with different debates and research questions emerging. Ultimately I suggest that the current volume is by no means a conclusive picture of archaeological heritage management and that the parameters and the questions are in constant flux.
KeywordsArchaeological heritage management Heritage values Digital heritage Critical heritage Heritage protection
- Bokova, I. (2017, July 17). Hobby Lobby is making cultural preservation harder—and more dangerous. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/07/17/hobby-lobby-is-making-cultural-preservation-harder-and-more-dangerous/?utm_term=.bbf67ee4a5fd#comments. Accessed 23 Jun 2017.
- Buser, M. (2015). Rubbish theory: The heritage of toxic waste. Amsterdam: Reinwardt Academy.Google Scholar
- Burra Charter (2013) The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Burra, Australia. ICOMOSGoogle Scholar
- Crooke, E. (2001). Confronting a troubled history: Which past in Northern Ireland’s museums? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(2), 119–136.Google Scholar
- Edwards, K., Bigourdan, N., McCann, I., & Cooper, D. (2016). 3DMAPPR: A community-based underwater archaeological photogrammetry program in Perth, Western Australia. The Journal of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, 40, 1–16.Google Scholar
- Halonen, H. (2014). Mooring project: Protecting the Underwater Cultural Heritage – Pilot project in Hanko and Kemiönsaari, Finland (Bachelor of Natural Resources thesis). Novia University of Applied Sciences, Tammisaari/Raseborg.Google Scholar
- Hardy, S. (2017). Quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property: Estimation of the scale and intensity of metal detecting and the quantity of metal-detected cultural goods. Cogent Social Sciences 3(1)Google Scholar
- Keitumetse, S. O., & Nthoi, O. (2009). Investigating the impact of World Heritage site tourism on the intangible heritage of a community: Tsodilo Hills World Heritage site, Botswana. International Journal of Intangible Heritage, 4, 144–149.Google Scholar
- Koskinen-Koivisto, E., & Thomas, S. (2016). Lapland’s Dark Heritage: Responses to the legacy of World War II. In H. Silverman, E. Waterton, & S. Watson (Eds.), Heritage in action: Making the past in the heritage (pp. 121–133). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Morgan, C., & Winters, J. (2015). Introduction: Critical blogging in archaeology. Internet Archaeology, 39. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.11.
- Munjeri, D. (2008). Introduction to international conventions and charters on immovable cultural heritage. In W. Ndoro, A. Mumma, & G. Abungu (Eds.), Cultural heritage and the law: Protecting immovable heritage in English-speaking countries of Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 13–23). Rome: ICCROM.Google Scholar
- Newell, J., Robin, L., & Wehner, K. (Eds.). (2017). Curating the future: Museums, communities and climate change. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Pitblado, B., & Shott, M. J. (2015). The present and future of archaeologist-collector collaboration. The SAA Archaeological Record, 15(5), 36–39.Google Scholar
- Pope, F. (2007). Dragon Sea: A true tale of treasure, archeology, and greed off the coast of Vietnam. Orlando, Austin, San Diego, Toronto, London: Harcourt Inc..Google Scholar
- Prott, L. V. (1983). International control of illicit movement on the cultural heritage: The 1970 UNESCO convention and some possible alternatives. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, 10, 333–351.Google Scholar
- Robson, E., Treadwell, L., & Gosden, C. (Eds.). (2007). Who owns objects? The ethics and politics of collecting cultural artefacts. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
- The Archaeology Forum. (2016). What does the EU mean to the UK Archaeology sector? A briefing by The Archaeology Forum, May 2016. http://new.archaeologyuk.org/Content/downloads/4398_What-does-the-EU-mean-to-the-Archaeology-sector.pdf. Accessed 19 Jul 2017.
- Venice Charter (1964) International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites.Venice, Italy. ICOMOS.Google Scholar
- Wolferstan, S. (2016). Ethnography of a ‘humble expert’: Experiencing Faro. In J. Schofield (Ed.), Who needs experts? Counter-mapping cultural heritage (pp. 43–53). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar